The irony is that these "experts" were supplied arms by military powers, including those that worked with the U.S. and aren't mentioned.

Not surprisingly, the same arms industry is behind lobbying against gun control but also lobbying for arms exports deregulation while providing more formidable armaments to police and military forces, including those that work for these "experts."

Quote:

This seems to be factual Ralfy. What, do you think, are the implications?

Quote:

The government working with the financial elite will engage in various false flags for various reasons, which includes testing the waters to see how the public will react to tragic events involving firearm use. These include attempts at gun control (which may be irrelevant because U.S. military and police forces, not to mention prison and surveillance systems, are already strong), note reactions in the form of more gun sales, note percentages of citizens calling for more security, etc.

Eventually, beefed-up military and police forces with ground-attack aircraft, drones, artillery, bombs, armored vehicles (all paid for by the public), will overwhelm citizens armed with small arms. Thus, citizens will be controlled ironically with the same armaments that they think will protect them from a government armed by the same source.

Quote:

Eventually? Why not now since the military has a huge weapons advantage since WWII? The general population has no defense from air attack (either tactical ground attack or strategic bombing), no counter for artillery, little counter for armored vehicles outside of suicide attacks, no organization, no squad level heavy weapons, and even insufficient small arms of military caliber. This has been the case since the end of the Civil War, but moreso since the end of WWI and even more after each technical improvement created by each successive conflict.

You are pointing to conspiracy theory ralfy? Of course there are many floating around after Sandy Hook, the main one being that the gov wants to disarm its citizens so that it can ..... whatever. But this makes little sense as the general public are not armed with tanks and drones anyway.

Eventually? Why not now since the military has a huge weapons advantage since WWII? The general population has no defense from air attack (either tactical ground attack or strategic bombing), no counter for artillery, little counter for armored vehicles outside of suicide attacks, no organization, no squad level heavy weapons, and even insufficient small arms of military caliber. This has been the case since the end of the Civil War, but moreso since the end of WWI and even more after each technical improvement created by each successive conflict.

Because the government, citizens, and Big Business are dependent on each other. The government needs armaments from Big Business and the vote from citizens who want no gun control, tax cuts, and easy credit from Big Business, with the same armaments used to maintain "peace and order" in the U.S. plus strengthen the military and provide military aid to allies and trading partners that can provide various strategic and economic advantages.

Big Business needs deregulation from government (including less gun control) so that it can provide easy credit to citizens (needed to prop up a consumer spending economy) plus profit from financial speculation (e.g., a global market of $600 trillion to over $1 quadrillion in unregulated derivatives, notional value) plus profit from investments, including those in the arms industry, not to mention profiting from trade deals with other countries thanks to military aid, foreign policies, etc.

Citizens need government to keep giving tax cuts and government services plus maintain the military to keep the petro-dollar propped up, as well as Big Business to keep providing easy credit to maintain their middle class lifestyle given a consumer spending economy. In return, they vote for one Reagan clone after another.

The problem is that Big Business got too greedy, has exposed itself to incredible levels of financial risks, and is now demanding bailout after bailout. With that, we have economic crisis plus more fear of conflict, especially given proliferation of arms, austerity measures, etc. Both government and citizens will not give in to less spending because the economy is dependent on that.

You are pointing to conspiracy theory ralfy? Of course there are many floating around after Sandy Hook, the main one being that the gov wants to disarm its citizens so that it can ..... whatever. But this makes little sense as the general public are not armed with tanks and drones anyway.

They are probably testing the waters to see what happens, which may include increased gun sales plus more reason for the government to beef up its military and police forces at the expense of the public.

Eventually? Why not now since the military has a huge weapons advantage since WWII? The general population has no defense from air attack (either tactical ground attack or strategic bombing), no counter for artillery, little counter for armored vehicles outside of suicide attacks, no organization, no squad level heavy weapons, and even insufficient small arms of military caliber. This has been the case since the end of the Civil War, but moreso since the end of WWI and even more after each technical improvement created by each successive conflict.

Because the government, citizens, and Big Business are dependent on each other. The government needs armaments from Big Business and the vote from citizens who want no gun control, tax cuts, and easy credit from Big Business, with the same armaments used to maintain "peace and order" in the U.S. plus strengthen the military and provide military aid to allies and trading partners that can provide various strategic and economic advantages.

Big Business needs deregulation from government (including less gun control) so that it can provide easy credit to citizens (needed to prop up a consumer spending economy) plus profit from financial speculation (e.g., a global market of $600 trillion to over $1 quadrillion in unregulated derivatives, notional value) plus profit from investments, including those in the arms industry, not to mention profiting from trade deals with other countries thanks to military aid, foreign policies, etc.

Citizens need government to keep giving tax cuts and government services plus maintain the military to keep the petro-dollar propped up, as well as Big Business to keep providing easy credit to maintain their middle class lifestyle given a consumer spending economy. In return, they vote for one Reagan clone after another.

The problem is that Big Business got too greedy, has exposed itself to incredible levels of financial risks, and is now demanding bailout after bailout. With that, we have economic crisis plus more fear of conflict, especially given proliferation of arms, austerity measures, etc. Both government and citizens will not give in to less spending because the economy is dependent on that.

If there is such a need now, what would change to allow the citizens to be overwhelmed in the future that is not present and how would it change? The logic fails to be evident.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Don't bother answering. The whole thread is just to make arguments and bad feelings, and thus a real waste------ for one person's sick need to argue for argument's sake.......

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

You are pointing to conspiracy theory ralfy? Of course there are many floating around after Sandy Hook, the main one being that the gov wants to disarm its citizens so that it can ..... whatever. But this makes little sense as the general public are not armed with tanks and drones anyway.

They are probably testing the waters to see what happens, which may include increased gun sales plus more reason for the government to beef up its military and police forces at the expense of the public.

But "they" already knew that gun sales would increase. How does Sandy Hook allow them to test waters that have already been tested? After every mass gun-murder, gun sales have dramatically increased. Nothing new there. Gun sales will increase, as we all know, and as they know from past incidences. People get "reactive" in a knee-jerk kind of way. The British were coming in the 1700's ..... we need a well armed militia, etc., etc.

As for beefing up military and police forces ...... why would they need a tragedy like SH to do that when they can and have used other 'reasons' to do that in the past? No .... sorry, but I am not getting your line of reasoning so far. Maybe you could break it down more specifically?

This debate is an old one. It has been raging since the founding. If one is interested they could easily search and find numbers where gun possession saves many more lives than they take. I’d like to point out a couple of strawman arguments made recently.

“You don’t need that many bullets to kill a deer!!!!”

There is no “hunting” clause in the Second Amendment. There is how ever “shall not be infringed” in the 2A. Sportsmanship and hunting are a distraction in this debate. A red herring for those who don’t believe in the Constitution to hide behind and appear reasonable. We’ve all heard about the woman in Georgia. A man forces his way in to her house. She and two daughters surrendered the entire house to him and hide in an attic crawl space. He’s not interested in any possessions in the house. He finds them in the attic. She shoots him 5 times. Thankfully that was enough. What if she had needed more than five shots? I would not seek to deny her a high capacity magazine if she wanted one. She is a law abiding citizen protecting her life, property, and the lives of her children.

“Well, we don’t let the citizens have rocket launchers.”

Another strawman argument designed to present the appearance the restrictions are in place and more is needed. I don’t buy this argument and its dishonest to boot. No one argues regular citizens should have advanced weapons systems that employ high explosives. How does that compare with a semi automatic rifle?

Johhny Electriglide. If you had that quad .50 would you break the law with it? If I had a rocket launcher would I break the law with it? No. When would I use it? If I saw a Chinese tank driving down my street. Same with a bazooka.

It doesn’t matter what weapons you give to law abiding citizens. They don’t break the law with them. But yet every “solution” from the left seeks to restrict law abiding citizens. That doesn’t work so naturally we have to wonder what are you really up to and why?

I propose that it is exactly military style weapons that should be in the hands of law abiding Americans. In Switzerland every able bodied male joins the military and is issued a military rifle that is his for life. He is expected to keep that rifle in good working order or he is fined. This is one reason why two world wars raged around that country. It’s the same reason why crime is lower in right to carry states, and same reason why crime flourishes in high regulated areas. This isn’t rocket surgery. Its not hard to figure out.

A little history lesson about the true meaning, application, and execution of the 2A This doesn’t come from the wild, wild west. This story comes from Tennessee in 1946. Two prominent families controlled much of two counties. One repeatedly ran for Sheriff. The other held a state senate seat. As they held power for a few years they began to abuse that power. Mainly making ridiculous fines for misdemeanors and imposing them on sometimes innocent people. Yet they continued to win re-election while being very unpopular. Many suspected fraud and asked for help from the federal government which did not come. After the war a few vets set up an opposition party. Fielded candidates and made plans to watch the polls. Noting this opposition the Sheriff deputized over 200. They went out on election day and beat and terrorized the poll watchers. One deputy shot and killed a black man attempting to vote. They took the ballot boxes and holed up in the jail.

A few WW2 vets were having none of this. They broke into the armory and attacked the jail with military style weapons. They dynamited the front door and took the jail. They returned the ballot boxes and the opposition candidates won.

Search the Battle of Athens, Tennessee for the full story if your interested.

There is no “hunting” clause in the Second Amendment. There is how ever “shall not be infringed” in the 2A. Sportsmanship and hunting are a distraction in this debate. A red herring for those who don’t believe in the Constitution to hide behind and appear reasonable.

There is also a reference to a well regulated militia, which means regulation is acceptable. It could also be satisfied by the National Guard providing weapons for its members. But the reality is that can be changed by a vote to do so by the majority of the members of 2/3 of the state legislatures, so any opposition to reasonable control can eventually lead to a real and legal total ban.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Well, in my example of Athens, Tennessee it didn't take a state militia to set thing right. Well regulated or else. It took a very brave band of citizens armed with military style weapons to set things right. Its not called the bill of needs. Its called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights meaning government can't take it away. Meaning God gave us this right that can't be abridged. Yes the Constitution can be amended as you described. Doesn't mean it should be amended to take away the 2A. A total ban of firearms mean tyranny is at hand.

Well, in my example of Athens, Tennessee it didn't take a state militia to set thing right. Well regulated or else.

No, it took the armoury for one.

Quote:

It took a very brave band of citizens armed with military style weapons to set things right.

Who had just been returned from duty where the weapons in the armoury probably originated since the Guard gets a lot of surplus weapons from the active military.

Quote:

Its not called the bill of needs. Its called the Bill of Rights for a reason. Rights meaning government can't take it away.

Yes it can. Just like every other amendment and clause in the Constitution.

Quote:

Meaning God gave us this right that can't be abridged.

No, that is a fairy tale. If God gave such a right it would not need to be written down for it would be enforced by God.

Quote:

Yes the Constitution can be amended as you described. Doesn't mean it should be amended to take away the 2A. A total ban of firearms mean tyranny is at hand.

Or it means the majority of the population has become fed up with the situation, which some groups do not want to address because it is an inconvenience for them. If the majority of the population believes it is tyranny to be forced to be injured and killed so a minority can do what they wish without inconvenience, which is correct? Hint: it will not be the minority.

Life is supposedly the top right when the courts decide priority when rights conflict, so there is no basis for setting any other right above it.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Life is supposedly the top right when the courts decide priority when rights conflict, so there is no basis for setting any other right above it.

Yes, including a right to self defense....life.

Which does not include the right to possess any weapon you may wish to use for self defense. The empirical data would support the actual loss of life as compared to the projected saving of life through gun ownership if that were all there was to determine.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein